philosophers tend to be quite egotistical, or at least they are seen as being egotistical by those who are not ready to accept their teachings... merely saying you are a philosopher though does not make you wise.. not caring about peoples reactions to such a statement makes you quite foolish if you are a philosopher. Who will listen to you after saying that you don't listen to others? Even if that is not what you are saying, that is what people hear. Philosophy is about learning who you are through observing your relationships. To be your own favorite is to cut yourself short. The point of admiration is to be more like those you admire, to learn and to grow.

I know what you mean if you do not admire others. I do not admire people either, but I admire what they teach and the things they do.

I believe, out of any philosopher, it is my ideas that most hold sway to my opinions. This should be true of everyone, whether they admit to it or not. So the second most liked philosopher, would definitely be Socrates.

1. The love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

I just brought that up to try and get you to define it in your own words. Because I think we said the same thing in different ways.

"individuation through learning about yourself"
=
"pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline"

"Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods"
=
"to understand everything in it's context, not as we idealize it to be"

so I agree too, but I am curious not what you agree with, but how you would go about saying this, in your words, or are your words just a matter of cutting and pasting? maybe mine are too, but that's a different subject

maybe you are too busy, if that's the case sorry to bother you with such tediousness

Often times my prose is not awesome enough to truly convey what I mean, or wish to mean. This is why I will occasionally provide the writing of another person, or website. What I quoted is, essentially, what I believe. I couldn't write it better myself. The same is true of many people, even if they don't know it. I'm still expressing my individual take on it, just doing so in a way I cannot do adequately on my own.

Just started on Plato's Republic...the guy was widely read during the Renaissance and has helped shape Western thought/society. I would consider becoming a neoplatonist...but I disagree with his thoughts on art censorship and think that "philosher kings" might not be the best kinds of leaders...for example..."Enlightened Despots" such as Joseph II didn't have much success implementing their philosophical ideals:

"The ideological rigidity with which Joseph II carried out his reforms also weakened the Habsburg Dynasty by provoking social unrest and, in Hungary and Belgium rebellion. When Joseph died in 1790, his brother, Leopold II (r. 1790-92), had to reverse many of the reforms and offer new concessions to restore order."

Catherine the Great and Old Fritz (Friedrich II, or Frederick II in english) had better luck, although Friedrich's reasoning for beginning the Silesian Wars (citing an obscure 1537 treaty as a claim to land) is questioned to this day.

but the philosopher king is not meant to be a monarch or a despot per se. He is the preserver of the system, like many tribal chiefs. The king doesn't decide anything except the best way to preserve the system already in place. Ingrained in the population through and through, all those who rise above the system, either in artistic ability or a scientific mind, are exiled or given political power. It is just a matter of nature, those who are better than those around them, either in ability or experience, are pressured to leave for bigger things, or are pressured to lead. You see it most in the "small town blues" people lack stimulation, so they seek it elsewhere, some never come back, some do. Those that do bring a more objective perspective, having experienced more of the macrocosm.

It is an aristocracy, not a republic, no one votes. It is a republic because the best of each field . Everyone does what they are best at. Utilizing the same concepts used to breed plants, artificial selection, a blood line of blacksmiths will breed better blacksmiths. This is the theory anyway.

A philosopher should be king because they have the most will power, they must still surround themselves with experts in various fields to help them with the different aspects of the society. One man can never be king. King implies you are a philosopher, the original meanings of Man, king, and philosopher were all pretty much the same, someone who has mastered their self. Those who have not mastered themselves, are those who have the most reluctance in seeking help when it is needed.

The best argument, that I am aware of, against the community described in Platos' Republic, is that is makes the community more important than the people in it, as though the point of human life is to socialize, which probably about half the people will never believe, and everyone else will only agree- about half the time.

I think it is EXACTLY what they say it is, in the book. Not a description of the ideal community, but a means to find the origin of evil in a community.

My ideal community is one of many which devote all their aspects to a field of scientific research.

but the philosopher king is not meant to be a monarch or a despot per se.

He's not..but people will always alter meanings to suit themselves, which is why no system will ever be perfect. Yet the philosopher-king idea led many "enlightened" leaders to believe in their own will a bit too much, in my opinion..which can be very very dangerous.

sorry but no, one man cannot be king. He needs at least some help in one form or another. Whether that help is payed for, forced or volunteered, doesn't change the facts, it is necessary for that man to be king. A leader needs subjects to be a leader, subjects need a leader to be subjects. Maybe this is a play on words, but it seems true. You may have qualities of a good leader, but unless you are influencing others, you are not leading anyone. This is all just an example, I am sure there is a better way of putting it, if you want to discuss it more we should start a different thread for it though.

believing in your own will is the last thing a philosopher would do, it is clearly written in plato's republic that philosophers would be king for lack of a better king, and it is the last thing a true philosopher would want to do. I am not saying that this book is el libre, but it is the source of all of this. I do not necessarily agree, but for the sake of discussion, the life of philosophy requires ultimate freedom. Leading people is the ultimate responsibility and directly interferes with any philosophical pursuits. This might simply mean that old philosophers should be kings, after they have lived a completely fulfilling life. Older people, as their bodies weaken, can only be put to use in few ways, the major one is to teach, and I think, the philosopher king, was never meant to lead, but was only meant to teach others how to lead themselves.

sorry but no, one man cannot be king. He needs at least some help in one form or another. Whether that help is payed for, forced or volunteered, doesn't change the facts, it is necessary for that man to be king. A leader needs subjects to be a leader, subjects need a leader to be subjects. Maybe this is a play on words, but it seems true. You may have qualities of a good leader, but unless you are influencing others, you are not leading anyone. This is all just an example, I am sure there is a better way of putting it, if you want to discuss it more we should start a different thread for it though.

believing in your own will is the last thing a philosopher would do, it is clearly written in plato's republic that philosophers would be king for lack of a better king, and it is the last thing a true philosopher would want to do. I am not saying that this book is el libre, but it is the source of all of this. I do not necessarily agree, but for the sake of discussion, the life of philosophy requires ultimate freedom. Leading people is the ultimate responsibility and directly interferes with any philosophical pursuits. This might simply mean that old philosophers should be kings, after they have lived a completely fulfilling life. Older people, as their bodies weaken, can only be put to use in few ways, the major one is to teach, and I think, the philosopher king, was never meant to lead, but was only meant to teach others how to lead themselves.

In today's world one man could be king if he had enough nuclear weapons. In that case people would be forced to submit to him or die. They wouldn't be able to shoot him or otherwise harm him b/c he would live in a bullet-proof, fireproof home surrounded by a moat filled with alligators and landmines and he would carry a machine gun in his home. He would farm and have no need for servants to provide him food. He would be a rough and tumble Western cowboy who captured the gators himself and built his own landmines. People wouldn't dare attempt to displease him b/c he would only have to press a single button to end humanity. Far-fetched..yes.... but impossible is nothing.

Nothing is impossible in theory... but the straight line only exists in the mind.

I don't think that is possible, because the mind won't allow itself to be that sort of person. When you are a despot you are forced to think in a different way than if you are a servant. If you are a despot you need to have people around to control or else you go crazy. This is all theoretical, but it seems to be true considering the amount of energy wasted by tyrannical douche bags in humiliation and belittling of their closest relationships. You would think tyrants would prefer to be alone, but no, they prefer the company of slaves, people who suit their ego.

it is the ones that actually care that end up distancing themselves from others, IE, monks, hermits, philosophers, transcendentalists, theorists, etc.

anyway, I included "force" as a means of obtaining help in my earlier post

you need help, whether or not it is willing

when all is lost, i think we will all be surprised how quickly people stop fearing death when it comes to exacting justice

when all is lost, i think we will all be surprised how quickly people stop fearing death when it comes to exacting justice

I do agree with this. I'm sure some people would try to stop him eventually..but for a short while he would reign supreme.

you need help, whether or not it is willing

Even if you did need help, you would be using the people (your "subjects", as Socrates said) to your own advantage and if you were despotic you would allow them no or very little pleasure...you would lord over them and would be the only true King and they the humble servants. You would not be like a physician administering medicine to patients and serving the commoner's needs (a popular analogy from the Republic). You could not claim, in such a case that the one in charge is not King. In a large society such as ancient Rome or Greece, no..the society would be too large for one King to rule over entirely alone..but take a smaller group who believe that the King is ordained by God (say, a cult) and cannot falter and then the shepherd will effectively guide the flock into his stable.

"a smaller group who believe that the King is ordained by God (say, a cult) and cannot falter and then the shepherd will effectively guide the flock into his stable."

Though maybe not necessarily a cult, you can consider them a large cult due to their relative solitude. Japan is a good example of an empire, ruled by the embodiment of God, perfect in all his ways, etc.

A form of state regulated Buddhism was used. Shinto was the traditional folk religion describing the gods and the state. Zen is, if I'm not mistaken, a hybrid of Shinto religion and Buddhist philosophy. From Zen we get Bushido and other more individualized philosophies of self sacrifice.

It seems that people don't need to be brainwashed, they will brainwash themselves. You have to ask yourself what allows someone to be brainwashed in the first place. It seems there is a part of our mind that desires to be deceived.

"if you were despotic you would allow them no or very little pleasure"
"not be like a physician administering medicine to patients"
What if the ailment of the commoner is caused from too much pleasure?

With all of the horrible events that happen to one or one's friends and family in his or her lifetime I believe that one humbles with time and that pleasure must necessarily diminish with age as one increasingly considers their own mortality and the suffering all around them. I believe, therefore, that the "ailment" will correct itself with time. Therefore, the old and wise should lead and guide the young commoner and be in charge of the State. However, my personal beliefs as to whom among the elderly should lead differ greatly from the beliefs of Socrates.

If the wise educated the young there would be no need for a state rule.

The only reason bad things happen is because goodness is not real. It is relative to one's standards. Wise people would share that with young people and young people would live more moderately, less pleasure AND less suffering, less subjective and more observant, IE, wise. The only reason we need a state is to force people who otherwise wouldn't, to put their desire for pleasure aside and to work together for a common end, sometimes referred to as "the greater good". I'll paraphrase Aristotle on the subject of philosophy "Philosophy has taught me to follow laws out of reason that others follow out of fear"

Hell no! Only by leaps and bounds of reasoning could you arrive at such a conclusion based on what I've written.

If the wise educated the young there would be no need for a state rule.

The young often don't listen..many a parent with good intentions has failed to rear children as they see fit (I would say morally, yet believe that morality is subjective)the cerebral cortex isn't fully deveolped until a man or woman's early twenties (Gazzaniga, 2008)...the young are often quick to anger and judgement as they lack experience..which they need as well as an education.

Older people don't listen as well. Kids listen, they just don't know the significance of many things. When teaching a child it is like planting seeds that will eventually grow into the desire to learn when they reach an age that they can understand things.

Experience is a part of education, neither of them ever truly end. Reading about scientific principles is one thing, experimenting with them is another, and using them to create something is on an entirely different level. You learn and gain experience from all of them. There is no education that is not experience, and there is no experience that is no education. We gain experience doing papers, but the experience is in just that, doing papers. Applying our knowledge is a completely different skill than learning.

What do you mean by wisdom? Why I related your "old&wise"ocracy to theocracy is because wisdom and age usually find their values in traditional religious teachings. An old person might be wise, but not ALL old people are wise. also a wise person might be old but not ALL wise people are old. You didn't answer my question, do you need to be both wise and old to rule? Is it a senate type of thing where all the old-wise folk discuss things.

This is no different than lots of churches. Sorry if I don't see how this is different than a theocracy. Maybe I'm using the word wrong.

Either way, the wise DO lead, and no matter what system is set to oppress the wise and distract the foolish, nothing will change natural law

and I looked it up. I am using theocracy wrong, my bad.

But nonetheless, one church I know of, the Jehovah's witnesses, use a system like the one you describe, all the old wise folk discuss things and there is so much red tape it is disgusting to think that these are the people in charge of the churches of such faithful servants.

Was George W. Bush wise? Was Ronald Reagan wise? Slick Willy was clever and bold at times, yet no great mind. In a democracy the wise only lead if the people are wise enough to choose them. We live in a country where blind faith dominates:

According to a 2001 Gallup poll, about 45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." Only 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

I'm talking about the wisdom seeking people in the streets, in your community, amongst your friends, family and coworkers, these people lead, whether or not it is obvious or intentional. Wisdom is too strong of a word, no one is truly wise, but there are those who seek wisdom, these people are well respected. Politicians are just doing their job.

If you are a fan of learning, as you say you should read The City of the Sun by Tommaso Campanella. I think you would enjoy it.

I'm talking about the wisdom seeking people in the streets, in your community, amongst your friends, family and coworkers, these people lead, whether or not it is obvious or intentional. Wisdom is too strong of a word, no one is truly wise, but there are those who seek wisdom, these people are well respected. Politicians are just doing their job.

We were initially speaking of the State. I was speaking of those with political power. Yet even what you claim about interpersonal relationships within the microcosm of local community (friends/family/aquaintances) is false. The wise are now few and their influence waning. Fundamentalists and their less fundamentalist but supportive friends influence our way of life (in many parts of this country).

"The wise are now few and their influence waning. "
Now? Can you remark about any other time being any different?

True.

I didn't say it was easy to lead. I did say that leadership of the wise is not always obvious or intentional.

True in a way, yet primitivism of thought keeps the masses from comprehending the messages of modernism. Look at the Bible Belt. Gays are going to hell! Premarital sex is evil! Not because they themselves came to those conclusions but because their preachers and teachers tell them so. They don't understand that if we take the bible at face value we are almost ALL certainly going to hell.

Examples:

Masturbation as a sin punishable by death:

Genesis 38:9–10 (NIV)
9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so he put him to death also.

Homosexuals, those who practice another religion, the greedy (and whom among us isn't greedy?) and alcoholics will never enter the kingdom of heaven:

1Corinthians 6:9-10Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revelation 21:8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.